Fabian Religion Has Poisoned The Rule Of Law

The Rule of Law isn't an obscure axiom about not allowing criminality, it is an essential component of our constitution. It has been brutally subverted by the Fabian Scoiety and Labour Party, with the aim of destroying English liberty and free democracy. We must restore it before it’s too late.

Johnathan Smith

Johnathan Smith

— 13 min read
Fabian Religion Has Poisoned The Rule Of Law

If you’ve paid any attention to politics over the last year, you’re probably aware that the next government is likely to try and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst undoing both are key to repairing the constitutional damage done to the United Kingdom (and the physical and psychological harm done to her people), there is a more fundamental aspect of our constitution that must be hastily repaired:

The Rule of Law is a metaphilosophy behind the interpretation and design of our laws: how the law is applied and how law itself should operate in human affairs. Like our constitution, it is uncodified and open to abuse. And abused it has been.

You will have heard politicians of all stripes say the words as if sacrosanct but the truth is the Rule of Law is probably the most important, under-discussed and misunderstood constitutional concept. In fact, when Johnson and Jenrick say it, you can be sure they have a completely different understanding of it to Mahmood and Starmer.

Formerly a fundamental safeguard of our rights, the Rule of Law has been so abused since 2010 that it lies mangled beyond recognition. This damage has been intentionally wrought by the Labour Party, directed by their policy arm, the Fabian Society, whose advertised ambition is to permanently alter our free democracy and merge us into an internationalised socialist project.

For the United Kingdom to survive, for us as a people to survive, it is imperative for any incoming party to understand:

  • what the Rule of Law is;
  • how it has been subverted;
  • the current state of play;
  • why it has been subverted (and the role of the Fabian Society); and
  • how to indelibly resurrect the Rule of Law.

What The Rule of Law Is

Until the 21st century we’d had a stable definition for over one hundred years. The father of our modern constitution, Albert Venn Dicey, set out in 1885 the three elements of the Rule of Law:

No man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In this sense the rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint. (p 110)

Every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. (p 114)

The constitution is pervaded by the rule of law on the ground that the general principles of the constitution (as for example the right to personal liberty, or the right of public meeting) are with us the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons in particular cases brought before the Courts. (p 115)

The first element makes clear that punishment may only be meted out by the judiciary for a clear breach of law which must have been enacted by Parliament. This is in direct contrast to other systems (Dicey was referring particularly to European systems) where individuals were at the mercy of the government and/or judiciary.

The second makes clear there is absolute equality before the law. All men are equal in the courts and there can be no preferential treatment.

The third is our constitution is underpinned by the Rule of Law. Our system of legal governance worked to defend our individual rights precisely because our legal philosophy i.e. the Rule of Law, required it to do so.

This makes perfect sense. It recognises Parliament must make our laws; punishment must flow from a distinct breach of those laws; and it must be dispensed by our courts. Crucially, laws are not to be discretionary and there must be total equality before the law.

In sum, the Rule of Law is what many would describe as the British principle of fairness. So fundamental is this to our sense of identity, it plays a large part in distinguishing the British people from any other the world over.

But Dicey’s definition of the Rule of Law is not the kind practiced by Labour. They have subverted it into something much more sinister.

How The Rule of Law Has Been Subverted

In the dying days of "New" Labour, a different definition of the ‘Rule of Law’ was set out by Lord Bingham, a senior judge, but importantly a Labour grandee who advocated the establishment of a "Supreme Court" under the eventual Constitutional Reform Act 2005. He is one of the worst serial offenders of judicial activism.

He took it upon himself to completely redefined the Rule of Law into 8 points of which the most important aberrations are set out below:

(1) The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.
(2) Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion.
(3) The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.
(5) The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights.
(8) The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law.

Perhaps worst of all, in his book on the subject, he described this new unsolicited redefinition thus:

In a world divided by differences of nationality, race, colour, religion and wealth [the rule of law] is one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest, the nearest we are likely to approach to a universal secular religion.

In its simplest terms, this redefining tears at the British constitutional fabric in a multitude of quiet ways, entirely malforming it to be non-functional:

  • No longer does there have to be a ‘distinct breach’ of the law. Now the law does not have to be predictable, intelligible or clear if that is not ‘possible’.
  • Law and rights may be applied on a discretionary basis where the circumstances are extraordinary (which is a highly subjective test).
  • No longer is every man equal before the law – the law may actively discriminate against him where there were ‘objective’ differences (but objectivity remains subjective).
  • At the heart of any criminal or immigration decision will be the ‘adequate protection’ (an entirely subjective term) of the ‘human rights’ of the subject of those proceedings, at the express expense of the rights of British people.
  • Parliament is no longer supreme. International law takes precedence.

If the Rule of Law were a religion as Bingham suggested, then this revised definition is heresy of the highest order. So offensive is it, it cannot possibly be reconciled with the English concept of fairness and understanding of the Rule of Law.

The Current State Of Play

The Conservative Party, or the Placeholder Party as one might have come to know them, took power in 2010 before this heresy took full hold of government. What they failed to appreciate, however, was this destruction of the Rule of Law went hand in glove with many other aberrations enacted by the Labour Party. In particular:

The practical effect of these developments is this new ‘religion’ pervaded key sections of our judiciary, human rights legal sector (some might say "industrial complex"), and public authorities, with most Conservative politicians remaining utterly oblivious. For example, by the time the Conservatives were ejected in 2024:

  • The ‘Equal Treatment Bench Book’, which provides judicial policy on, amongst other things, the approach to sentencing, carried a series of statements so bizarre the characters in Orwell's Animal Farm might have spoken them:
True equal treatment may not, however, always mean treating everyone in the same way… In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.

Astute readers will immediately recognise these as the effects of American Marxist sociology: the absurd doctrine of "critical race theory" developed from "critical legal studies", itself a reaction to the disastrous American experiment with "position discrimination".

This pattern has continued apace since the general election:

As Dominic Cummings, a former Special Adviser to Boris Johnson regularly comments, it is the "pathological regime" working exactly as intended. These words sound flippant but his diagnosis is entirely accurate: The system has been designed to work like this… but by whom?

The answer to that question isn’t as simple as it appears.

The Role Of The Fabian Society

To understand why the Rule of Law has been subverted, one needs to have an appreciation of how the left of politics works in the UK.

The face of the British left is the Labour Party. But like any effective operation, they are merely the sharp end of the spear. The driving ideological force comes from what you don’t always see directly in press briefings or parliamentary motions. Most understand Labour’s financial support comes from trade unions, but what most don’t always know is the ideology has always flowed hierarchically from its roots within the ancient Fabian Society. The party itself was founded with help from the society in 1900, as "the only original founder that remains affiliated in unchanged form".

Founded in 1884, the Fabian Society has the express goal of transitioning our free democracy into a socialist enterprise, using what they refer to as a gradualist approach. It advocates for so-called "democratic socialism" (aka post-1968 Eurocommunism) through gradual reform ("gradual inevitability") rather than revolution. Their stated core intention has been to achieve socialist goals through incremental policy changes, education, and working within existing democratic institutions.

It is perhaps why their logo was, until recently, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Fabian Society emblem: the wolf concealed as a sheep.

This allusion is disturbing enough, given its biblical context in Matthew 7 as a severe warning over malice and false teaching:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them. Do people pick grapes from thorn-bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognise them.

The society is named, somewhat hubristically, after the Roman general Quintus Fabius. In their first pamphlet, they explain its origins and application to their operations:

For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.

It's worth noting the Fabians were firm supporters of British imperialism and supported the Boer War, justifying social reforms at home in terms of turning the British working class into an 'imperial race' capable of fighting Britain's wars abroad. It provided intellectual justification for eugenics policies, including those that led to Australia's "stolen generations" scandal. Their eugencist instincts remain strong.

In 1923, over twenty Fabians were elected to parliament, with five Fabians in Ramsay MacDonald's first Labour cabinet. 229 members of the Society were elected to the House of Commons at the 1945 general election and over 200 in the 1997 election. The society's strategy of "permeation" i.e. gradually influencing existing institutions rather than revolutionary overthrow, has proved remarkably successful in embedding socialist ideas into mainstream British politics and policy.

Vladimir Lenin called the Fabians "social-chauvinists" and "a gang of bourgeois rogues who would demoralise the workers." Leon Trotsky criticised them as "provincial, boring, and unnecessary, particularly to the working class." H.G. Wells quit the group, describing it as "overwhelmingly middle-class and disconnected from the trade union movement." Thomas Sowell claimed they represented "an elitist managerial class that favours 'governance by intellectuals and experts' over grassroots democracy."

The socialist policy machine, according to its own doctrine, must never stop whirring. Labour is its poltical front group and every Labour prime minister has been a Fabian.

Even though Labour might lose an election, the Fabian Society, through its various shopfronts, is ever active in the next doctrinal step of altering our constitution. They keep the pressure up through 6,000+ members who are pervasive through academia, politics and law (for example, Fabians founded the New Statesman magazine and the London School of Economics). With the exception of Thatcher, this whole system approach is what has arguably countered any serious Conservative attempts to undo their ‘progress’, particularly the Cameron years onwards.

When they next accede to power, the next incremental phase inevitably begins - as it always has.

Last cycle, having defenestrated the mainstay of the opposition (hereditary lords), and the perverted the ancient written elements of our constitution (see acts listed in the ‘current state of play’ above and the Human Rights Act 1998), the policy machinery of the Fabian back-office appears to be targeting the next layer of the onion: our unwritten constitution. Specifically, they are embedding their perversion of the Rule of Law across government.

How do we know this? Well, Attorney General and infamous left-wing activist Lord Hermer recently issued new guidance to the Civil Service which hinted as follows:

The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law.

David Shipley of The Spectator misdiagnosed this as the ‘Hermer Doctrine’ but one may recognise the maxim from earlier in this article. It is verbatim Lord Bingham’s eighth principle the Rule of Law:

(8) The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law.

You see, it is not the ‘Hermer Doctrine’ but the ‘Fabian Doctrine’.

But perverting the Rule of Law is just one turn of a very big screw. The May 2025 register of ministers’ interests shows us 31 Labour ministers are Fabian Society members, including Prime Minister Starmer and AG Hermer. It is a highly effective career ladder for aspiring Labour figures, and it is telling how closely Fabian doctine mirrors legal developments adopted by politicians.

Other Fabians now in power include Seema Malhotra and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, both former Chairs of the Society. One will probably be unsurprised that Kim Leadbeater, whose ‘private members bill’ will create a state sponsored killing system of the old and infirm, is a Fabian, unironically writing their 2023 Healthy Britain policy.

What this means is, now the Labour Party is back in power, they are inevitably ramping up their infamous "modernisation" (destruction) of the bedrock of our free society, for example:

The fact a governing party have a complete democratic deficit and no real mandate to force through such changes seems to mean absolutely nothing to them; perhaps the founding words of their back-office resound in the headquarters of their adult playpen: “when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did”.

Unfortunately, the British electorate have up to another four years of the Labour front group, and it’s more than likely they have much more constitutional vandalism planned. It would be unsurprising if they attempted to find ways to subvert the democratic process itself to stay in power.

How To Indelibly Resurrect The Rule Of Law

In contrast to the Fabian Society, who have set themselves the task of imposing socialism gradually in Britain over 140 years, there is no such equivalent standing the defence of our free democracy. It is why the Conservative Party became a ‘Placeholder Party’, rightly earning the joint title of the Uniparty; they were incurious, inept and devoid of strategic vision. This is the first thing that needs to change.

One glimmer of hope is Restore Britain, the first sizeable policy platform on the ‘right’ with Parliamentary presence. Its mission statement must be to defend our free democracy and it must be the firm ideological opposition the Fabian Society, countering their every move. Like the Fabian Society, it must be a long-term endeavour with a core nucleus but involving as many vetted free-thinkers as possible as critical friends. In producing policies, it must inhabit any and all political parties on the ‘right’, winning the public debate outside of the party-political framework.

Once in power, we must change the rules governing who can be an MP; the current system attracts the worst malcontents and ideologues, many of whom wouldn’t succeed anywhere else in life. Prospective MPs must have relevant training/experience and must be paid properly. It is only then that MPs will fully appreciate the potential damage of Fabian/Labour proposals and will have the secondary welcome effects of drawing the best talent (£100,000 is exceptionally low earning potential for our brightest) and of barring almost the entire Fabian/Labour joint project front bench.

But most importantly, like Dicey, we must recognise the constitutional importance of the Rule of Law and we must codify it:

Equality before the law
Punishment may only be before the courts for distinct breaches of law
No exceptions

Of course, this must be accompanied by an onslaught of legislative repeals and judicial reform but, without restoring our Rule of Law, none of it can succeed.

Read more